Like the title says, how often does your group find their total Obligation soaring upward of 100?

My group is currently sitting at 85 and are quite likely to take on more before any of what they have is resolved, so I'm looking at the possibility that they may go two or three sessions at >100 Obligation. Has anyone else actually experienced this?

It's never happened so far, and given that they all know they can't use XP when over 100 it's virtually guaranteed to never happen. They would never do anything that would cause them to acquire enough Obligation to cross that line, regardless of temptation or coercion.

The group I'm in is currently sitting at 90 (several PCs took the full +10 for either XP or gear), though we were at 95 at one point due to a PC taking on some Debt Obligation during game play to procure supplies for our expedition (GM is running us through Beyond the Rim), but the player had to leave to get his personal life sorted out.

Personally, I'm a bit worried about us crossing that particularly threshold, as I'd like to have my PC continue to gradually improve as a Force-user rather than be stuck in a holding pattern while the group tries to lower our total Obligation.

We've hovered at 95 for the past several months. I was very cautious about adding new obligations, but I should have worked in more scenes to pay them down so that they would remain a living, breathing part of the story.

Our party had some misfortune early on that took Obligation to bail out of, along with starting high with char gen purchases and broke the threshold after a few sessions. At that stage, the adventure became doing stuff to lower Obligation (which worked out fine, actually).

Having my players almost get destroyed by TIEs, and almost get a PK against some bounty hunters, the players are very hesitant to take on more obligation. They even put a short term loan on their ship to avoid more obligation

My group has crossed that breach twice. Most recently, the Bounty Hunter had to kick the majority of his Booster Blue habit, which was hilarious, because the party often carried Booster Blue doses on them just to make him a better shooter/pilot when it mattered (combining this with the Doctor's Stim Application made him a powerhouse, hence why he often had to make Resilience checks to avoid massive heart attacks... which happened twice anyway, nearly killing him). Over time, however, encouraging his drug habit added more and more Obligation until it got completely out of hand and they crossed the >100 breach. Gave me a laugh at first, but three sessions without spending XP gave everyone around 65-70 XP, so this weekend everyone got a pretty significant power boost. Ended my evil cackles pretty efficiently.

(Before that, the issue was that four players in rapid succession joined what began as three person game, which pushed their collective Obligation to about 120 [everyone loves extra XP for extra Obligation lol] and prompted everyone to sit down and systematically tackle different Obligations.)

Has not happened. Obligation has sort of receded into the background for us. Oftentimes we simply forget about it.

Over time, however, encouraging his drug habit added more and more Obligation until it got completely out of hand and they crossed the >100 breach.

What was the cause of the Obligation increasing? This would be a conscious choice of adding to the mechanic rather than using it at the level written.

Personally I'm of the opinion that, say, taking on a lot more Debt in-game doesn't necessarily need to increase the actual value of an existing Debt Obligation - it just makes it harder to fully pay off (a narrative issue rather than mechanical).And I am really against +Obligation being added as a negative consequence of gameplay.

Haven't had it happen yet, but like Krieger said, they're wary of anything that locks out XP.

If you're looking to force it back down, I would recommend one of two things. (Possibly both.)

1.) Every roll on the Obligation table at the start of the session gives the target 4 strain and everyone else 2 strain. Bonus points if, on doubles, you give the target 6 strain and everyone else 3 strain. (Granted, those are bonus points in Jerkassery, but hey.)

2.) Make a random roll on the table, and whoever's Obligation pings gets brought to the forefront where they have to deal with it immediately. Their loan gets called, the bounty hunter finds them, the Imperials corner them, their drugs start decreasing rapidly in their effectiveness... whatever it takes.

But honestly, I think the lack of being able to use XP would be scary enough.

Over time, however, encouraging his drug habit added more and more Obligation until it got completely out of hand and they crossed the >100 breach.

What was the cause of the Obligation increasing? This would be a conscious choice of adding to the mechanic rather than using it at the level written.

Personally I'm of the opinion that, say, taking on a lot more Debt in-game doesn't necessarily need to increase the actual value of an existing Debt Obligation - it just makes it harder to fully pay off (a narrative issue rather than mechanical).And I am really against +Obligation being added as a negative consequence of gameplay.

Over time, however, encouraging his drug habit added more and more Obligation until it got completely out of hand and they crossed the >100 breach.

What was the cause of the Obligation increasing? This would be a conscious choice of adding to the mechanic rather than using it at the level written.

Personally I'm of the opinion that, say, taking on a lot more Debt in-game doesn't necessarily need to increase the actual value of an existing Debt Obligation - it just makes it harder to fully pay off (a narrative issue rather than mechanical).And I am really against +Obligation being added as a negative consequence of gameplay.

I adjust Obligation up or down as a consequence of game play all the time. When four of the PCs got into a public shootout at a spaceport and then flew off without clearance, each of them earned a Criminal 5 Obligation. When one of them handily dealt with some bounty hunters that were sent to get him, his Bounty Obligation dropped from 10 to 5.

As long as the GM is just as generous in allowing the PCs to create scenes were they can get rid of Obligation, as he/she is in tacking on new Obligation I see no problems either. As I read it Obligation is meant to have a very large roll at the center of things, pushing the story. Making the players make hard decisions.

My crew is not very near 100 yet but they are getting there fast with a threshold of 70 and only three sessions played.

I'd be interested to know why you are against adding to Obligation "as a negative consequence of gameplay" Kshatriya. Personally I see it as a very good way of making the social game contract concrete and transparent.

My group has 4 players and has never gone above 65. Of course, we don't get to play that often.

I'd be interested to know why you are against adding to Obligation "as a negative consequence of gameplay" Kshatriya. Personally I see it as a very good way of making the social game contract concrete and transparent.

1. Something about imposing hard mechanical consequences on what could be a narrative consequence bothers me, especially in a narrative system like this.

2. I have a concern that the GM would be more willing to add new Obligation than to allow removal of it as the situation dictated (for example, I probably wouldn't reduce a Bounty obligation if the PC offed the bounty hunters chasing him, because more (and better) hunters would undoubtedly be coming later. I'd allow the Bounty Obligation to be decreased once the player in question found a way to reduce the severity of the underlying cause of the bounty - i.e. if he's fleeing from a debt, he pays some of it off; if he's being pursued by someone with a vendetta, he tries to make amends or render them no longer a threat).

3. Avoiding more bookkeeping for everyone is generally one of my gaming goals.

I probably wouldn't reduce a Bounty obligation if the PC offed the bounty hunters chasing him, because more (and better) hunters would undoubtedly be coming later.

Not really. The bounty pay out offered isn't going to increase just because a trio of hunters were killed and the risk in collecting the bounty has been demonstrated to be be higher than before. With increasing risk and no increase to reward, fewer bounty hunters are going to be interested in trying and more experienced bounty hunters still won't bother with a bounty so small as to be beneath their notice.

I disagree. To me, when more experienced bounty hunters hear that some small fries were easily wiped out, they see it as a better test of their skills and check it out. I see a lot of pro bounty hunters as always looking for the next big thrill, like big game hunters: testing their skill against a worthy foe. But it depends on the amount of the bounty, of course.

I disagree. To me, when more experienced bounty hunters hear that some small fries were easily wiped out, they see it as a better test of their skills and check it out. I see a lot of pro bounty hunters as always looking for the next big thrill, like big game hunters: testing their skill against a worthy foe. But it depends on the amount of the bounty, of course.

Those that are True Professionals do it for the money. For them, it's always a matter of risk vs. reward. If your Star Wars has bounty hunters that are punks always trying to prove something or just out for a thrill, then sure, higher risk for a low reward might attract them. They're unlikely to be quality opponents though.

I disagree. To me, when more experienced bounty hunters hear that some small fries were easily wiped out, they see it as a better test of their skills and check it out. I see a lot of pro bounty hunters as always looking for the next big thrill, like big game hunters: testing their skill against a worthy foe. But it depends on the amount of the bounty, of course.

That COULD happen, but it would be an exception to the rule. Experienced bounty hunters are also experienced businessmen, and not all of them are going to be facing some midlife crisis/inexplicable urge to"prove" his or herself and go after a challenging bounty that doesn't pay much. It could happen, of course, which is why the Bounty doesn't go away altogether. As long as the Obligation remains there's always the chance of triggering it, possibly even with doubles, which could mean a master hunter or better comes after them in exactly the way you're describing.

A reduction in Obligation scale is justified. It's a tangible reward the players can all enjoy.

I disagree. To me, when more experienced bounty hunters hear that some small fries were easily wiped out, they see it as a better test of their skills and check it out. I see a lot of pro bounty hunters as always looking for the next big thrill, like big game hunters: testing their skill against a worthy foe. But it depends on the amount of the bounty, of course.

That COULD happen, but it would be an exception to the rule. Experienced bounty hunters are also experienced businessmen, and not all of them are going to be facing some midlife crisis/inexplicable urge to"prove" his or herself and go after a challenging bounty that doesn't pay much. It could happen, of course, which is why the Bounty doesn't go away altogether. As long as the Obligation remains there's always the chance of triggering it, possibly even with doubles, which could mean a master hunter or better comes after them in exactly the way you're describing.

A reduction in Obligation scale is justified. It's a tangible reward the players can all enjoy.

I think this disagreement demonstrates well the importance of transparency. While I know many do not want to peak behind the curtain so to speak having Obligation as an actual mechanic directly tied to a narrative story makes it much easier to get the whole group on the same page.

"Oh, so it not enough to just kill of the hunters. I have to get that debt taken care of. Cool, got you."

It is very easy to make "obvious" calls as a GM only to find out that the players are flabbergasted. This is one of the main reason that I like Obligation so much.

We try to stay under 50...small fish, big pond.

I disagree. To me, when more experienced bounty hunters hear that some small fries were easily wiped out, they see it as a better test of their skills and check it out. I see a lot of pro bounty hunters as always looking for the next big thrill, like big game hunters: testing their skill against a worthy foe. But it depends on the amount of the bounty, of course.

That COULD happen, but it would be an exception to the rule. Experienced bounty hunters are also experienced businessmen, and not all of them are going to be facing some midlife crisis/inexplicable urge to"prove" his or herself and go after a challenging bounty that doesn't pay much. It could happen, of course, which is why the Bounty doesn't go away altogether. As long as the Obligation remains there's always the chance of triggering it, possibly even with doubles, which could mean a master hunter or better comes after them in exactly the way you're describing.

A reduction in Obligation scale is justified. It's a tangible reward the players can all enjoy.

I certainly would not do that unless the bounty hunters were actually challenging. It'd also depend if the failed hunters' deaths were discovered or made public - it's a big galaxy after all.

Good points about pro bounty hunters though, both you and HappyDaze.

I disagree. To me, when more experienced bounty hunters hear that some small fries were easily wiped out, they see it as a better test of their skills and check it out. I see a lot of pro bounty hunters as always looking for the next big thrill, like big game hunters: testing their skill against a worthy foe. But it depends on the amount of the bounty, of course.

That COULD happen, but it would be an exception to the rule. Experienced bounty hunters are also experienced businessmen, and not all of them are going to be facing some midlife crisis/inexplicable urge to"prove" his or herself and go after a challenging bounty that doesn't pay much. It could happen, of course, which is why the Bounty doesn't go away altogether. As long as the Obligation remains there's always the chance of triggering it, possibly even with doubles, which could mean a master hunter or better comes after them in exactly the way you're describing.

A reduction in Obligation scale is justified. It's a tangible reward the players can all enjoy.

I feel like, more realistically, constantly killing the low-skill bounty hunters that come after them would mean the bounty would go up, thus attracting more skilled bounty hunters to come after them. It depends on how desperately the person who put a bounty on them wants them captured or dead.

Our group is at 80 and is really eager to work it down to a more 'relaxed' level of about 40. They have been hit by obligation coming into play 3 sessions in a row now and were unable to speak to anyone of importance on board the Wheel seeing as their reputation kind of made the official administrators wary of dealing with them.

I disagree. To me, when more experienced bounty hunters hear that some small fries were easily wiped out, they see it as a better test of their skills and check it out. I see a lot of pro bounty hunters as always looking for the next big thrill, like big game hunters: testing their skill against a worthy foe. But it depends on the amount of the bounty, of course.

That COULD happen, but it would be an exception to the rule. Experienced bounty hunters are also experienced businessmen, and not all of them are going to be facing some midlife crisis/inexplicable urge to"prove" his or herself and go after a challenging bounty that doesn't pay much. It could happen, of course, which is why the Bounty doesn't go away altogether. As long as the Obligation remains there's always the chance of triggering it, possibly even with doubles, which could mean a master hunter or better comes after them in exactly the way you're describing.

A reduction in Obligation scale is justified. It's a tangible reward the players can all enjoy.

I feel like, more realistically, constantly killing the low-skill bounty hunters that come after them would mean the bounty would go up, thus attracting more skilled bounty hunters to come after them. It depends on how desperately the person who put a bounty on them wants them captured or dead.

Not unless the bounty hunters themselves are putting up money for the bounty and that's just not going to happen. If I offer a bounty for 10,000 credits I really don't give a **** if a bunch of halfwits get themselves killed trying to get the mark - it certainly doesn't make me offer more money. If I see that no one is going after my mark because the payout is too low, I have to evaluate if it's worth it to me to offer more. Sometimes it is, often it's not. This is why some bounties can hang around for years or even decades and some marks still travel around fairly freely (many Wookiees have little concern for the basic bounty offered by the Empire on members of their species),

But if one of those Wookiees tallies up a big number of kills (be they bounty hunters or not) his bounty would definitely increase. Killers are usually not looked upon in a kindly manner.